I get it I'm just not happy about it. Apple is hoping this device cuts into the e-reader, tablet and netbook markets which it should be more then capable of doing. Believe it or not most people don't care about e-ink screens and netbooks are creeping into the $500 range anyway so they'll probably be quite successful with this thing at least in the short term. As for me, I'd still rather have a netbook.
Exactly. I was pretty convinced it wouldn't sell throughout the presentation until they unveiled the surprisingly reasonable prices. I think everyone was so entrenched in the $1000 price point that they were expecting that throughout the presentation.
Well, if anything, this will spur gaming companies to up their game. I just got an email from Firemint that they're already working on new games to take advantage of the iPad. I guess on that front, that's a good thing.
I agree, I know that the day I can march into an Apple store and fiddle around with one my tech-addict side will be screaming to plunk down the money. It does seem to be a very cool gadget. It probably is a great experience surfing the web with it, and I'd LOVE to have Brushes on that bigger screen. But I just don't think it's PRACTICAL for me to get one, and I think the majority of people are in the same boat. I have a MBP, sure it costs about twice what an iPad will, but is a fully featured computer capable of doing everything I need it to while still having a small enough form factor to be really portable. I have an iPod touch, which is smaller than my wallet and gives me everything I need in the way of games, music, web on the go, and other media. I feel like the majority of people already have some sort of laptop or some sort of media-capable mobile device, so I'm not sure how many people are going to run out and grab an iPad besides the hardcore tech nuts. I think it's a cool device, and will have a lot of great things about it, but I don't get the "I need one of those NOW" feeling over it like I did when I first saw the iPhone. I think Apple TV is a great product too, but it's also a really niche product, mostly due to people already having things like On Demand with cable, or digital streaming over PC/game consoles. I just think too many people already have the devices they need to do everything the iPad touts, and there's not enough innovation to make people drop what they currently use to rush out and grab one.
As far as personal reactions go, I'd buy this in an eyeblink just to serve as a digital sketchpad. It's also a nifty web browser, and that alone is a big value justification. Personally I have no need for multitasking on a casual device. It hasn't been a feature that I've found lacking in an iPhone, and the usage patterns for this device seem similar. I multi-task at work, but not on the couch Professionally the graphics performance is a question mark until we learn more. It's got about 5X the pixels of an iPhone, and for portable hardware that's some seriously heavy lifting to do. The battery life quotes are all for much lighter tasks, gaming isn't even mentioned. There's no question it can run pixel-doubled iPhone games, but it remains to be seen how quick it is when running shader-enabled content at its native resolution.
BOARDUMB, I agree with just about everything you stated. Again, I could see myself getting some use out of it in specific circumstances, but I just don't see the wide-ranging practicality of it, nor the need to replace my iPod touch/Macbook Pro combo, the former of which is pretty much everything the iPad is but in a smaller form factor, and the latter of which can do much more. I agree. But if Apple were to take that product (after issuing a new model using upgraded processors for 1080p, etc.) and release an SDK and open up an AppleTV App Store, ala iPhone/touch, then it would do more than either On Demand or game consoles do. I neglect PCs because, quite frankly, the numbers of those who have their PCs hooked up to their HDTV living room centerpieces is likely small. And that's exactly where such a "new" AppleTV would come in: more than just a digital set top box, it'd be a game console and a nifty little computer as well, having photo apps, office apps, etc. The game consoles and cable boxes don't do all those things, and PCs, as stated, are usually not tied in with most folk's living room centerpiece: the TV set.
I hear you... but knowing Apple, the price will drop dramatically a few months after release. It would be perfect for card games, multiplayer "sitting across the table" board games, and merit megatouch games. But it's lousy for "gaming on the go" and I can't imagine it replacing a desktop pc. That being said, I plan on updating at least Card Shark Solitare, Xiangqi, and the upcomming World to Conquer tactical battle game to support ipad resolution.
The max battery life is 10 hours, and can be as little as 3 with a graphic-heavy game. More here... http://www.pcworld.com/article/187868/apples_ipad_plays_games_surprise.html/
I think the point a lot of people are missing is that this isn't a device you're meant to shoehorn in to your digital lifestyle. If you're happy with your iPhone and laptop, awesome. If you require a portable device that has multitasking, great. If you'd rather buy a $300 woefully underpowered netbook that runs some bastardized version of Linux, rock on. The fact of the matter is, there's a ton of people out there who don't have a device that fits in the question mark: Browsing the web and playing games on the iPhone is great, but it does pose quite a few pretty big issues largely due to the small screen size. The iPad takes everything that is cool about the iPod touch and iPhone, and blows it up in to a cool device to sit around on your couch or at a coffee shop reading a book or browsing the web. If you really don't think there's a market for a casual device like this, you really need to get outside of the bubble you're in where people require all the functionality of a full blown computer, or won't want to spend a few hundred bucks on a slick device that fits their needs. Apple is making a genius move here in not creating a product that caters specifically to tech geeks that want to tweak every aspect of their device. The casual market is where the money is, and where the iPad will do great. Something to keep in mind is that developers had two weeks to get things ready for the event. The App Store has transformed the iPhone in to something few people imagined when the first iPhone was announced. With how third party support has exploded on the iPhone, it won't be what Apple does or doesn't include in the system software, it will be what the third party market creates which will really make the iPad shine. The only time Apple has drastically dropped the price of a product they released within a few months was the iPhone, which they apologized for and issued early adopters a $100 credit.
Three hours certainly hurts the enjoyment on long flights. Still, battery life isn't so much a concern for a living room device. For games, fill-rate and memory bandwidth are major question marks
Also, something everyone is failing to realize is that the iPad is going to be a complete out of the park homerun for project managers, health care professionals, professors, and other people who have been clamoring for a tablet device for years but haven't been able to find anything that sticks thanks to the horrid implementations everyone else has had which amount to little more than "ok cool we have this touchscreen, now let's make Windows work on it."
Except that part in bold kinda sorta goes against what Apple was touting it as: a mobile device. And if you were to use it in your living room, again I state why not have Apple re-energize the AppleTV brand with new hardware and it's own App Store and, maybe, just maybe, a touch and motion based remote (think of the Wiimote merged with the Magic Mouse)? That would fulfill the desire for a living room device far better, IMHO, than the tablet would for a variety of tasks, and for less cost probably (and therefore it would have a larger market, and as you know a larger market of consumers means a larger market of developers). If this thing doesn't take off the way Apple expects then maybe the 3rd party developers won't really make much in the way of apps. I guess it's a good thing that it's an extension of the current app store, so it'll have ready support, but it has still have to have it's own apps to really make it worthwhile for something other than being an oversized iPhone/touch.
With no multitasking and still having to be tethered to a desktop/laptop for data and firmware updates it isn't as efficient as it can be which is a drawback for professionals.
While web browsing might have sucked a decade ago when webTV and Dreamcast were trying to push it for your little low rez CRT a growing number of people have nice big HDTVs now that are not any different from the LCD your probably reading this from. I'd buy a HTPC in a heartbeat over an iPad.
Congratulations you're not the target customer for an iPad? I don't know, I fiddled around with the browser on the Wii for a while and can't imagine how anyone could use something like that for anything more than checking the weather or reading CNN headlines. Oddly enough, the PS3 web browser which is in HD is even worse.
Sorry Eli, but I disagree with this. The lack of multitasking and the inability to run business-type apps (it remains to be seen what comes down the pike) really limits the device. You'd be hard pressed to find any professional who could use this effectively in a business environment. As an entertainment device, it's fine. But right now, this would not work in a business or healthcare environment unless it was being run over the Internet via SaaS/on-demand. I won't even get into the whole networking issues which can be troublesome for many work environments. And we already know that the healthcare industry is still a ways behind when it comes to tech adoption. The iPad really is a nice to have peripheral device, but it definitely doesn't have the functionality found in a laptop.
PS3 and Wii's browsers suffer from limited memory and poor implementation. Run a copy of firefox on a decent PC hooked up through VGA and you've got a great web browsing experience on your HDTV.
As opposed to a $500 oversized iPhone that runs a glorified version of the iPhone OS, right Eli? I'm just sayin'.... The issue isn't whether or not they have a device that fits into the "?", but whether a sizable portion desire such a device, Eli. NONE of us here have a device that fits into the "?", but, y'know what? Some of us don't want one, some do, and others are completely "meh" about it. And if it comes to pass that it doesn't get out of the "oversized iPhone" image it has now, chances are those saying "meh" will say "nay" in the future. And conversely the iPad poses quite a few pretty large issues due to it's larger size overall as well (battery life, for one, less portability for another). Again, there are uses for it. But the market in the mood for that "?" is limited compared to the market for the other two ranges. That's all I'm getting at. Again, never said it was a "bad" product, or will "fail" (although I did say lack of multitasking is "epic fail", which, quite frankly, it is IMHO), but that it most likely will not "revolutionize" anything, nor set the world afire nor sell as much as Apple thinks it will, and possibly will simply be a very niche product in Apple's product line, such as AppleTV is. The difference is that I see a greater potential for AppleTV whereas I really don't see it for iPad as long as it remains what is basically a larger iPhone/touch. Except people already do that right now with their iPhone/touch devices, cell phones, etc. or their laptops. If this product is for those that don't use their mobile devices for those things now, then that's a rather small market. And if it's for those that do but want it "all in one" without the pocket portability of the former or the power of the latter, then, again, that might be a rather small market. As far as home use is concerned, again, I point out that, IMHO, AppleTV would've been the smarter play in that regard if it had its own App Store, as it would not crossover into Apple's other product lines like I can see iPad doing (therefore no self-cannibalization) and would likely establish a potentially larger consumer base. No doubt there's a market. I've stated so itt and in the past. I simply think the market for this device is not as sizable as for the iPhone/touch, nor probably for the Macbook, or what the potential market for a re-energized AppleTV with App Store could be. It's most probably a niche market, highly niche even. Not enough to be a revolution, which is what Apple touted. But...I'm not a tech geek Eli. And I'm pretty sure a large portion of the members of this board aren't either. And yet...a lot of us don't think this product particularly caters to us or most anyone we know. And if it's a highly niche product, do you really think it will shine as well as it could? Support won't be there for the most part if it's highly niche. That's why I'd state that Apple letting it run current iPhone/touch apps if reconfigured a bit is pretty genius. It at least lets them hit the ground running and gives them a bit of built in support.
Hey hey hey...Dreamcast could be hooked up to a computer monitor via native VGA. Yes, Eli, because Apple would make a horrible browsing experience for AppleTV I mean, Safari is absolutely horrible, right? And certainly the PS3 web browser and the Wii web browser (a stripped down Wii specific version of Opera) are both in the same league as true full fledged browsers like Safari.
